Jesus. And I don't mean that in some pious "Sunday School" way either. Jesus truly was the greatest philosopher to have ever walked the earth.

Socrates was wonderful, but he attempted to extrapolate the truth. Even Buddha had many good teachings, but he pointed to a truth. Jesus IS the Truth; He did not point to any abstract truth, He did not teach that we needed secret knowledge, instead He pointed to Himself and showed that He was the foundation for all metaphysics, all epistemology, all ethics, all government, and all things involving philosophy. Though Jesus is so much more than a philosopher, He is certainly the greatest philosopher to have ever walked the earth.

All others either work against Him and are therefore wrong, or work for Him and are therefore below Him.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

And most people put Descartes on their list, which leaves no doubt that such lists are nonsense... then again, as I've surfed philosophy department sites, it seems that many people have great interest in Descartes, so I guess a lot of careers are built on nonsense. As for my own list, I'm hardly qualified to give an informed opinion of who the greatest is, but as far as who I've actually found helpful, Carneades, Schopenhauer, and Socrates just about round out the list (and it's odd that two of the three were only helpful because of the work of another man). Of course I've found tidbits here and there in others, such as Aristippus of Cyrene (or his grandson), Heraclitus, etc., and I am excluding people I consider theologians rather than philosophers.

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

And most people put Descartes on their list, which leaves no doubt that such lists are nonsense... then again, as I've surfed philosophy department sites, it seems that many people have great interest in Descartes, so I guess a lot of careers are built on nonsense. As for my own list, I'm hardly qualified to give an informed opinion of who the greatest is, but as far as who I've actually found helpful, Carneades, Schopenhauer, and Socrates just about round out the list (and it's odd that two of the three were only helpful because of the work of another man). Of course I've found tidbits here and there in others, such as Aristippus of Cyrene (or his grandson), Heraclitus, etc., and I am excluding people I consider theologians rather than philosophers.

If you talking in terms of importance on impact on thought and culture, no one can deny Descartes proudly changed and altered the world. His Meditations on First Philosophy should be required reading for all freshman high school students.

For more serious readers, it is the beginning and end of Modernity. Everyone else was just adding footnotes to his thought. The criticisms that can raised in his method are ignored and people keep living of his corpse today in dead "analytical departments".

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Thing about St. Thomas Aquinas is that you should probably spend a decade or so with Aristotle before reading him.

But who does such things nowadays?

LOL. That's not because of a deficieny in Aquinas, but because many people are not aquainted with Aristotle, Plato, Damascus, or the Father. Aquinas assumes that his readers understand them because most student who would be reading Aquinas during his time had some knowlege of such. That being said, I think a month or two worth of serious study would be all that would be necessary to prepare for Aquinas. OR, some one could simply read Edward Feser's introductory book to Aquinas and be somewhat prepared. Of course, the best way to get wet is to go swimming.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Jesus. And I don't mean that in some pious "Sunday School" way either. Jesus truly was the greatest philosopher to have ever walked the earth.

Socrates was wonderful, but he attempted to extrapolate the truth. Even Buddha had many good teachings, but he pointed to a truth. Jesus IS the Truth; He did not point to any abstract truth, He did not teach that we needed secret knowledge, instead He pointed to Himself and showed that He was the foundation for all metaphysics, all epistemology, all ethics, all government, and all things involving philosophy. Though Jesus is so much more than a philosopher, He is certainly the greatest philosopher to have ever walked the earth.

All others either work against Him and are therefore wrong, or work for Him and are therefore below Him.

If philosophy is the love of wisdom, and Jesus is Wisdom, wouldn't he be the subject of philosophy, rather than a philosopher?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Awesome novel, manifold so if you have medieval philosophy under your belt.

I'll have to take a look.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Thing about St. Thomas Aquinas is that you should probably spend a decade or so with Aristotle before reading him.

But who does such things nowadays?

LOL. That's not because of a deficieny in Aquinas, but because many people are not aquainted with Aristotle, Plato, Damascus, or the Father. Aquinas assumes that his readers understand them because most student who would be reading Aquinas during his time had some knowlege of such. That being said, I think a month or two worth of serious study would be all that would be necessary to prepare for Aquinas. OR, some one could simply read Edward Feser's introductory book to Aquinas and be somewhat prepared. Of course, the best way to get wet is to go swimming.

I wasn't suggesting a deficiency in St. Thomas Aquinas, but in general the propaedeutic approach to much reading of substantial thinkers. And that is not to say that Aristotle is simply propaedeutic to St. Thomas Aquinas!

Awesome novel, manifold so if you have medieval philosophy under your belt.

I'll have to take a look.

It is rather a ribald, Southern Americana picaresque. wiki it to see if it might be up your alley. If your sensibilities are easily offended or you don't have a love for intellectual mockery within the context of the broadest of comedy, might not be quite what the Doctor ordered.

Thing about St. Thomas Aquinas is that you should probably spend a decade or so with Aristotle before reading him.

But who does such things nowadays?

LOL. That's not because of a deficieny in Aquinas, but because many people are not aquainted with Aristotle, Plato, Damascus, or the Father. Aquinas assumes that his readers understand them because most student who would be reading Aquinas during his time had some knowlege of such. That being said, I think a month or two worth of serious study would be all that would be necessary to prepare for Aquinas. OR, some one could simply read Edward Feser's introductory book to Aquinas and be somewhat prepared. Of course, the best way to get wet is to go swimming.

I wasn't suggesting a deficiency in St. Thomas Aquinas, but in general the propaedeutic approach to much reading of substantial thinkers. And that is not to say that Aristotle is simply propaedeutic to St. Thomas Aquinas!

Well stated.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

In my undergrad Philosophy class, I wrote a paper on Diogenes and St. John the Forerunner (based on Fr. Bulgakov's book "The Friend of the Bridegroom) comparing and contrasting them.

I definitely enjoyed the philosophy of Cynicism.

Another word for the "irony" thread: cynicism.

Dogology

Interesting work for an undergrad. Would you recommend Fr. Bulgakov's text? Is it in decent English translation?

The thing with choosing the text is that there isn't a lot of Orthodox theological views of St. John the Forerunner. Sadly, we spent so many of our writings on the Theotokos (well deserved), but we have forgotten about the man who truly allowed himself to decrease that the Lord may increase.

So Fr. Bulgakov's book was the only book from an Orthodox perspective I could find and it was a very good book (it did give footnotes of translations where the English does injustice), with the exception of the last two or three chapters where he connects his Sophiology (at the time, I was confused at his Sophiology, so I didn't use those chapters in my research). I was advised by my professor to compare and contrast the teachings in this book with the book by Dr. Luis E. Navia about Diogenes, who also in a small snippet in his book somewhat alluded to similarities between the two, Diogenes and the Forerunner.

I was asked to write 10 pages, but I could have written much much more, and I had to condense my writing to 13 pages.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2011, 02:54:28 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

"Good" doesn't describe the book. Neither does "great." Fantastic, one of his best books...something along those lines would adequately describe that book.

It's not deep and is written in an inspirational tone, but you'll still learn quite a bit. It's more of a devotional for those who are interested in or have studied philosophy.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

And most people put Descartes on their list, which leaves no doubt that such lists are nonsense... then again, as I've surfed philosophy department sites, it seems that many people have great interest in Descartes, so I guess a lot of careers are built on nonsense. As for my own list, I'm hardly qualified to give an informed opinion of who the greatest is, but as far as who I've actually found helpful, Carneades, Schopenhauer, and Socrates just about round out the list (and it's odd that two of the three were only helpful because of the work of another man). Of course I've found tidbits here and there in others, such as Aristippus of Cyrene (or his grandson), Heraclitus, etc., and I am excluding people I consider theologians rather than philosophers.

If you talking in terms of importance on impact on thought and culture, no one can deny Descartes proudly changed and altered the world. His Meditations on First Philosophy should be required reading for all freshman high school students.

Are you serious?

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Socrates is probably in quotes because the historicity of him has been disputed. He could of been just a mouthpiece of Plato.

The historicity of Socrates is pretty undisputed. Xenophon mentions him in multiple books, Aristophanes lampoons him in The Clouds, there are other, fragmentary accounts of Socrates' teaching, and documents relating to his trial persisted in the Athenian archives until at least the 2nd century AD. Now, obviously Plato's dialogues have Socrates proposing some ideas that Plato probably didn't come up with until long after Socrates' death, but nonetheless there's plenty of evidence that the man existed and practiced philosophy.

Socrates is probably in quotes because the historicity of him has been disputed. He could of been just a mouthpiece of Plato.

The historicity of Socrates is pretty undisputed. Xenophon mentions him in multiple books, Aristophanes lampoons him in The Clouds, there are other, fragmentary accounts of Socrates' teaching, and documents relating to his trial persisted in the Athenian archives until at least the 2nd century AD. Now, obviously Plato's dialogues have Socrates proposing some ideas that Plato probably didn't come up with until long after Socrates' death, but nonetheless there's plenty of evidence that the man existed and practiced philosophy.

Exactly, most scholars agree that the earliest of Plato's works are probably the pure Socrates. By the time we get to The Republic, we see more of Plato than Socrates.

And I would say that any list that omits Plato or Socrates as great philosophers isn't a list worth looking at; both of these philosophers laid the groundwork for ideas and vocabulary that the Church Fathers would later use to explain Christian theology.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus